 |
| Rojak buah - a popular Malaysian salad |
The first
of the nine challenges posed by Vision 2020 is that of creating by the second
decade of the next century a united Malaysian nation which is ethnically
integrated and harmonious. This amounts to an admission by the Government that,
more than three decades after independence, we are still not a nation in the
full sense of the word. Those of us who would agree with this belong to two
main categories. There are non-Bumiputeras
who believe that the officially sanctioned “Bumi/non-Bumi” dichotomy
is the root of most of the obstacles to the emergence of a true nation. And
there are the Bumiputeras who claim
that we are not a true nation because we don’t have linguistic and cultural
unity. It is not my intention here to discuss all the reasons that have been
offered to the absence of true nationhood. I only want to look at the
linguistic reason advanced by the Bumiputeras,
and to discuss it in relation to literature. Since literature is part of
culture, what I have to say may have some bearing on the thorny issue of
“national culture.”
One of the
many responses to our Prime Minister’s call for a critical discussion of his
Vision 2020 is a booklet I’ve just read called Wawasan 2020 dan Pembinaan Bangsa Malaysia (Vision 2020 and the
Building of a Malaysian Nation). Published by the Department of Anthropology
and Sociology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of
Malaysia), the booklet is the result of a dialogue held last year by a group of
UKM academics. The views expressed in it can be considered representative of
the dominant thinking among the Malay intellectual elite.
All the
academics in the dialogue more or less agree that the two main reasons for the
failure of a true Malaysian nation to emerge are (1) the unwillingness of the
majority of non-Bumis and a section
of the Bumi elite to show a genuine
and full commitment to the national language; (2) the persistence of cultural
pluralism despite demands by the Bumi
literati for a full implementation of the National Cultural Policy. The
academics are particularly concerned about the continuing presence of the
language of our former colonial masters. They lament the fact that English is
still very visible everywhere in this country; on TV, in the print media, in
all forms of advertising, on shop signs, at the cinemas, in bookshops and other
places. In the private sector, English is the dominant language of
communication. Private colleges with English as the medium of instruction are
allowed to function freely. These
academics further complain that even the younger generation of non-Bumis who were educated in the National
Language prefer to speak English or their own language when there is no
official compulsion or expectation for them to speak in the National language.
With TV-watching constituting a large
portion of their leisure time and English newspapers, magazines and books their
preferred reading material, it is not surprising that English is their usual medium
of communication. But what the UKM
academics are really sad about is the fact that a sizable section of the Malay
elite, especially the businessmen, prefer to speak in English not only to non-Bumis but among themselves too. What’s
worse, they even think in English!
The
Government is taken to task for compromising on the issue of national language;
for allowing English to be so visible in many areas of public life. The
Government, it is repeatedly stressed in the dialogue, must apply the law
rigorously to ensure that only the National Language is used in situations
where such use is legally enforceable. It is even implied that the Government
should extend its legal powers, presumably through new acts of Parliament or
amendments to the present National Language Act, to ensure that the status of
Malay as the sole official language is respected. The implication is
strengthened by the proposal that there should be a National Culture Act to
correspond with the National Language Act. Such an act, it is argued, would
ensure the end of kebudayaan rojak
(Salad culture) – a colloquial expression for “cultural pluralism” or
“multiculturalism.”
One of the
academics is sceptical about the fifth challenge posed by Vision
2020, that of creating a liberal and tolerant society in which Malaysians
respect each other’s creeds and customs. He wonders if this is not an approval
of kebudayaan rojak. Another even more uncompromising academic
actually accuses the Prime Minister of inserting the dangerous idea of
“democratization of culture” in his Vision 2020. This same academic
categorically asserts that “nasionalisme
Malaysia bererti … nasionalisme bumiputera, dan Wawasan 2020 perlu dikudung
oleh nasionalisme bumiputera ini.” (“Malaysian nationalism means … Bumiputera nationalism, and Vision 2020
must be buttressed by this Bumiputera
nationalism”) He also prophesies that if the present widespread use of English
is not checked, “bangsa Malaysia pada
tahun 2020 ialah bangsa yang fasih dalam Bahasa Inggeris.” (“the Malaysian
nation in the year 2020 will be a nation fluent in the English language”) (I
didn’t know that to be fluent in the lingua franca of the world is a bad
thing.)
The booklet
as a whole strikes me as a rather regressive document which shows that
ethnocentric thinking is still very strong among the Bumi intellectual elite. They are not yet psychologically liberated
to use a phrase from Vision 2020. The document weakens even more the little
faith that sceptics like me have in our ability to meet the challenges of
creating a united nation which is ethnically integrated, and a mature
democratic society which is psychologically liberated, liberal and tolerant.
The suggestion in the booklet that non-Bumis
who don’t speak the National Language all or most of the time are ipso facto
not Malaysian in spirit, and those Bumis
who are bilingual are renegades, is nonsense. And the allegation that the non-Bumis are more conscious of their ethnic
identities than their identity as Malaysians is only worth entertaining if the
UKM academics are prepared to be honest about the Bumis’ own sense of identity. Aren’t they also like the non-Bumis in this respect? One of the
academics actually admits it, and I commend him for his honesty.
On the
question of cultural pluralism, we must be realistic. As realists have often
pointed out, kebudayaan rojak is
inevitable given the multi-ethnic nature of our society in which no one race
truly dominates in terms of numbers. Anyway, what’s wrong with kebudayaan rojak? Malaysians like rojak. It’s good for them, and it helps
nation building. Unity in diversity is certainly better for the vitality of our
cultural life than the imposition of an artificially conceived national culture
through legislation. A living culture, as everyone knows, grows naturally; it
cannot be programmed or legislated according to an abstract recipe. And it is
disingenuous of the UKM academics to blame linguistic diversity, in particular,
for the failure of a true Malaysian nation to emerge. There are other factors,
mainly political, which are really responsible.
As far as
English is concerned, its widespread use can, under the right conditions, be
good for the nation because like Bahasa
Malaysia, English cuts across ethnic differences. Why regret the fact that
our country has more than one lingua franca? Isn’t it better for unity and
integration? I’d even be reckless enough to argue that in the present state of
affairs, English is perhaps a better medium of integration, certainly among the
middle and lower middle class Malaysians, than even the National Language. Why?
Because it is not identified with any particular ethnic group. And if we
confine ourselves to the middle and lower middle classes, more non-chauvinists
are found among English-speaking Malaysians than among speakers of the other
languages.
This is
something that could make our English language novelists, poets, dramatists and
essayists more sensitive to the dream of true nationhood and more alert to the
evils of chauvinism. The ability of the National Language to bring about
national integration is not in question here. But national integration is a
very slow process; we could do with any help we can get in making it less slow.
The English language, I think, can be a help here. And it doesn’t really matter
that English is largely the language of the elite and its potential as a medium
of integration is mainly confined to the middle class. This is after all the
class from which most of our leaders come. And in the slow process of true
nation –building, our leaders must show the way instead of being led by the
masses in the name of political expediency.
1 July 1992
No comments:
Post a Comment