Malaysia Cultural Influences on Ethnic

Malaysia Cultural Influences on Ethnic Society

Political Science: Malaysia

The purpose of this paper is to explain the stability in ethnic relations in Malaysia since 1969. Political, economic, and cultural explanations are reviewed, with the most persuasive answer providing the explanation for Malaysia's stability (culture). The author postulates and discourses on how cultural explanations help account for today's peaceful stability in ethnic relations, noting how political and economic influences were very small compared to the cultural explanations offered for the current status of Malaysia per the many historians that have reviewed the country's history and the fight for a common and representative culture. The author demonstrates how cultural tensions led to almost all of the uprisings in Malaysia throughout history, and how settling these cultural differences and affairs has led to the creation of a collaborative nation-state, one interested in promoting diversity as do many other nations in today's global and diverse world.

Most researchers focusing on the period before 1969 (where riots broke out in Malaysia) and those after the riots note that cultural tensions were often the source of political and economic unrest (Brunnel, 2004). The country's economic status has remained in fact, relatively unchanged during the last three decades (Brunnel, 2004). The cultural landscape has not changed much either, except for the introduction of the Islamic culture as one of society's "norms" (Brunnel, 2004).

Hock (2000) reviews changing ethnic relations in Malaysia with regard to interactions between "state's policies to advance Malay culture dominance and reduce ethnic economic inequality" and the "aspirations and actions of the Chinese community" (p.1). With regard to political and state-related issues, Freedman (2000) suggests the question of whether ethnic members especially the elite pursue "separatist" or collaborative strategies. Hock suggests the question of whether rival ethnic groups living in Malaysia are relatively equal to each other or unequal in stature (p. 2) is a core issue related to the stability now enjoyed by many people living in Malaysia.

Freedman (2000) and Gomez (2004) note that political tensions in early Malaysian history centered primarily on cultural issues, which Hock (2000) expands on. Hock (2000) and Guan (2000) note the 1969 riots revolved around ethnic tensions and conflicts ended many of the problems in Malaysia, largely because many of the "rival" ethnic communities living in Malaysia pursued more of a unified front or similar strategies and goals. Although it took riots and other destructive efforts to achieve common goals, the people of Malaysia have, since that time, worked largely to promote what Hock (2000) refers to as "amalgamative" strategies (p. 4). Others including Mitchell (2000) and Kheng (2002) note that a blended state results primarily not from political or economic factors, because these had little to do with the ethnic stability Malaysia currently experiences, but instead because of collaboration between people of different ethnicities living in Malaysia. Wong (2001) and Yun (2000) comment that economic factors had little to do with political and cultural uprisings, and that political uprisings occurring in Malaysia from the 1969 risings to the present had little to do with politics or the economy of Malaysia and more to do with diversity from a cultural perspective. Because so many researchers comment on the cultural elements resulting in a blended nation, one must agree that cultural continuity is the reason Malaysia enjoys relatively little strife in modern society.

Hock (2000) also notes that following the riots in 1969, the economic "inequality gap" narrowed between people that were of the "Malay" and those of the "non-Malay" culture (p. 4). The author notes however that Islam is spreading more and more among the Malay people, and that eventually Islam will likely spread not only in personal or religious ways, but also into the "collective identity" of the people of Malay, perhaps resulting in multiethnic social classes even more diverse than they were previous to the riots of 1969.

Why is ethnicity a topic of such concern among Malaysians? For one, it has been a dominant force for more than four decades, because other forces including social ones linked to the "stratification" of society are ever-present among different classes in Malaysia and between men and women living in Malaysia. Along with the Malays, Chinese and Indians live, and all respect according to Hock (2000) their own native language, culture and religions, which have an impact on the way they conduct business, and on the social and economic prosperity of the culture. Since the dawn of time ethnicity has been considered an "integral constituent of the individual psyche" among people living in Malaysia, with many people allowing their membership with any one "ethnic" force to guide their social life (Hock, 2000, p. 3). In Malaysia among all the people's living there, there is according to Hock (2000) interest with emotional ties that leads ethnic groups to become more successful than social ones.

Previous to 1969, ethnic communities struggled over a single national identity and struggled over the share of power both politically and economically. Many believe that nation building is preceded by or comes at the same time as the cultural process of "collective identity formation grounded in ethnicity" (Hock, 2000, p. 4). Whichever ethnic group was most dominant was the one most likely to form the "basis of nationality" (Hock, 2000). Typically in other countries minorities often would assimilate or accept the dominant cultural and ethnic group and come to create a collaborative ethnic identity that took into consideration the may minorities it was composed of.

Hock (2000) suggests however, that the reason it was easy for Western Europeans to assimilate minority ethnic parties was largely because the cultures and ethnic identities of people living in Western Europe were largely "homogenous" thus did not vary much from one person to the next. The same cannot be said of the people of Malaysia, where great ethnic, cultural, religious and other beliefs varied greatly in nature. When one things of a nation typically as Hock suggests, they think of a nation as a body of people living together that share a history in common, and one that share's largely similar cultures and languages, and therefore absorption of small ethnic minorities is a simple process. This is not the case when many different rival ethnicities that share no similar culture or religion or language fight for power. The Malays did not choose to assimilate all religions and languages, although they are interested in building a national-like culture based on Malay principles.

Phang (2000) and Tan (2000) notes that previous to modern times the political environment of Malaysia centered on cultural factors including whether the Malay or non-Malay people's would have dominant status in the land. However, since the riots of 1969, most people have worked to encourage the diverse culture that makes Malaysia what it is today. Phang (2000) and Tan (2000) both mention the strongest uprisings involved subjects like education. The Chinese people for example, wanted throughout history to have their schools recognized as the national "medium" (Phang, 2000).

This did not arise from elitist thinking; rather, the Chinese wanted their culture to be acknowledged because the Chinese people living in Malaysia were afraid the government would wipe out their culture if their children were not able to learn their native tongue. This sentiment however, had little to do with the economy. The politics surrounding it were all related to culture.

That is not to say there weren't times in history when "elitist" behavior was the norm in Malaysia (Brunnell, 2004). However, in modern times and during colonial times no ethnic or cultures in Malaysia were granted any status that would allow them to be "elitist" in nature; for all intents, most of the people in Malaysia were equal (Bunnell, 2004). Political and economic ties between people of different ethnicities in Malaysia were much the same for most of the time immediately preceding the riots of 1969. Bunnell (2004) emphasizes the riots, noting they occurred over cultural problems not political or economic problems. The non-Malay and Chinese cultures were not attempting to rule the country; rather, they wanted their culture represented as part of the mainstream Malaysian culture. The Chinese for example, wanted their cultural symbols to be present throughout the public areas of Malaysia.

The Chinese were not able to influence Malaysian policy much one way or another. Bunnell (2004) notes the Islamic people of all the peoples in Malaysia have had the greatest political impact because while Malaysia is dominated today by Malay as the medium or mainstream culture, much of the culture and political government also holds in high regard the Islamic people and their beliefs.

People began fighting not because they were poor or rich; they fought because they wanted symbols of their culture to become more prevalent in society. However, the people of Malaysia, at least the Malay majority, favored a solid nation-state. For this reason they attempted to contrive and follow a constitution calling for a single ethnicity to dominate the people of Malaysia (Brunnel, 2004). This however did not sit well with the people of Malaysia. After a series of uprisings, the people of Malaysia, non-Malays, Malays, the Chinese and others, all agreed to develop a country that was multicultural, especially in modern times when globalization is a topic of high-priority among many people's of the world (Brunnel, 2004). Brunnel (2004) is one of many researchers that notes that growing interest in nations that are ethically diverse has caused many of the leaders in Malaysia to highlight their diverse culture in recent years inclusive of non-Malays and Chinese and Islamic peoples, rather than hide it (Wong 2001, Kheng, 2002)

Hock (2000) and other historians (Kheng, 2001; Yun, 2001) noted that during the early years or colonial times most cultures were allowed to do as they please, and all ethnic groups had "equal access" to the land and the public spaces of Malaysia to do as they pleased; however, during the post-colonial period, more and more ethnic cultures attempted to dominate each other in at attempt to "promote the public presence of Malay culture" (Hock p. 5). This early culture reflects how Malaysia is set up today. While the Malay culture dominates the country from a political and economic vantage, the culture of Malaysia is richly filled with many different influences including Islamic, Chinese and non-Malay influences (Brunnel, 2004).

When Malaysia gained its independence from Westerner's during the Colonial times, many problems related directly to ethnic groups' desires to construct what would later be the Malay culture known to other people throughout the world (Hock, 2000; Brunnel, 2004). Leaders in Malaysia wanted to promote the Malay culture without assimilating all other non-Malay cultures and those practicing Islam; the idea was that a national culture could be accepted that would not "alienate" other communities that were non-Malay but living in Malaysia. Hock (2000) concludes that too much ambivalence existed about whether to include or exclude non-Malay cultures from the modern nation (p. 5). The primary point however, that most historians make is that even though the Chinese fought for their rights, as did the people of non-Malay cultures, they did so because they were concerned their culture would not survive, and they wanted their children to immerse themselves in their ethnic culture as much as they would the culture of the Malay people (Brunnel, 2004). Again, historical evidence points to culture as the leading factor and element that led to peace. While the Malay government fought to make its presence known for some three decades, now that the Malay culture is finally entrenched, there has been little strife politically or economically throughout Malaysia (Brunnel, 2004; Yun, 2001).

There are many reasons the Malay dominant party decided not to assimilate other cultures. One reason for this was to keep the peace (Brunnel, 2004). During the 1960s the religions and language systems of non-Malay people varied a great deal from the Malay culture. This is one reason it was impossible to assimilate the cultures, and one reason there was much turmoil regarding ethnicity in Malaysia. Malay people's at this point in history were "privileged" people's, especially given their status as the dominant culture.

There was much disorganization among the Malay people, and since the government failed to quickly institute or advance a uniform language or culture many non-Malay's lost faith in the government at the time, which included the United Malays National Organization (Hock, p. 6). Mandarin was the primary language spoken so the people that acknowledge the Chinese way of life and religion felt they should have more privileges or at the minimum gain equal stature with the Malaysians. The ethnic riots did not change the Malay "dominating" culture within Malaysia, but the Malays did work to "reconstitute" the lay of the land and the cultural landscape that the public would come to know. So, how does all of this translate into a country that widely accepts all ethnicities and manages to do so in peace?

Malay cultural policies put into place in recent years established the Malay language as the primary medium through which children would communicate and learn in school, and the primary language that most Malaysian people would use during interactions with the public or with people of other nations. The Malay people did much to make present in public places, symbols and other aspects of their culture so those living within Malaysia acknowledge Malay as a dominant force.

However, Malay people did not force the Chinese, the Indians or people of Islamic descent to readily adopt all of their policies. There are for example, many items that are decorative in nature or culturally significant in nature displayed in public places. Malay officials have allowed other cultures to carry on their traditions in a way that doesn't usurp the Malay people or threaten their culture. Hock described the phenomenon as "reasonably accommodating" meaning the people governing Malay have been willing to change many aspects of the "public" landscape so that it reflects the Malay culture but also demonstrates the presence of other major cultures including Islam and Chinese in public areas.

While there was much tension in Malaysia throughout the seventies and eighties, during the 1990s through the present, many of the old tensions revolving around culture and ethnicity in Malaysia have waned. Chinese citizens are able to recognize their own cultural symbols and are allowed their own practices. Chinese people's are also allowed to teach their children Chinese at Chinese schools, a trend that started during the 1980s; that means while in the "public's" eye, while most people learn Mandarin and adopt Malay culture, the major subgroups living in Malaysia are comfortable embracing their own culture without much threat from the current government.

The Chinese education allowed is a compromised resolution; this means the state recognizes primary schools and the education they provide, but people of Chinese descent are still required to attend Malay secondary schools. The reason many Chinese schools agreed to this was the funding provided to them by the government. The government funded primary schools as long as the people of the Chinese culture agreed to send their children to Malay schools for secondary education. By then, most Chinese will have already learned their ethnic tongue, so it was not cause for rioting (although many Chinese did not like the agreement). The Ministry of Education has kept tabs on enrollment, noting that most Chinese prefer Chinese primary schools, but move to national secondary schools that offer Malay as the medium through which teaching occurs.

While the Chinese did gain support with regard to education, it is important to note that this was short-term; the rise of primary Chinese schools occurred from the 1970s to the 1980s; gradually the government that was Malay began enforcing the 1971 National Culture more so than ever before, and re-emphasized how important Malay was as a medium in primary and secondary schools. It is important to note that during this time, all the turmoil that existed between the Malay people and the Chinese, and the turmoil between the Malay people and the non-Malay people of Malaysia, all of this turmoil focused on cultural and social rules, not political or economic ones. The class system in Malaysia did not change much during this time; most people of society were classified as lower, middle or upper- middle class. This held true whether people were Malay, non-Malay or Chinese or Islamic.

During the late 1990s the Islamic people began to speak out, wanting more of a presence within the population. Thus, much like symbols of the Chinese came about in public places during Malaysia's early history, now Islamic symbols started to appear in public places. Malay officials in the government continued, even in the face of potential uprisings by the people of Islam, to push for a Malay oriented culture and nation. Of emphasis in the government was how important it was to adopt Malay culture. Religion and language were secondary at all times to culture, suggesting the peace and harmony of Malaysia lie on cultural bounds.

There were other problems during the 1990s, including the loss of standing of the Chinese schools which caused tension among the Chinese people, who felt they had no support in Malaysia. However, tension with other groups including the non-Malays receded. The Malay and non-Malay people, from the 1990s through today, live in relative peace and harmony. This is because the Malay government is no longer fighting the Chinese people for supremacy; much of the land is already inundated with Malay cultural symbols, beliefs and practices (Hock, 2000). Hock (2000) notes the non-Malay people generally "accept their subordinate position" to the point where they rarely object publicly to the Malay cultural movements. The Chinese are content to a point where they appreciate their own space, and have not made further efforts to rise against the Malay government; especially given their efforts in the past were minimal at best. Many may say the Chinese have given up their hopes for a Chinese-oriented culture, and are simply grateful for what they do have.