AUG 2 — If you’re to excel in politics, you can’t always be dodging difficult questions. Or if you absolutely must, you certainly can’t seem too outright in doing so. Our dear PM, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, recently appears not only to be too eager in deflecting a question, he also seems to be deflecting responsibility.

Someone asked him if he was prepared to state that he was “Malaysian first, then only Malay” in direct contradiction to the DPM, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin. Najib’s by-now-famous reply, “I don’t want to respond in a way that will divide me from my deputy”, followed by, “1 Malaysia is our guiding philosophy. It does not matter what you say, just as long as you follow (the 1 Malaysia concept)” deservedly ignited condemnation on what can only be political double-speak.

As DAP sharp-shooter Tony Pua has pointed out, it DOES matter what you say. Or even if Pua had kept silent, others would’ve surely pointed out to Najib that it’s not enough to say that it’s okay “as long as we follow” because the very issue at hand is WHAT EXACTLY to follow!

And yet perhaps the more interesting issue isn’t whether or not Najib and Muhyiddin agree (for even if they did, of what great value would this amount to?). Rather, we should in fact ask ourselves what it even MEANS to be “Malaysian first, Malay (or Chinese or Indian) second”.

Can there be a truly ‘Malaysian’ identity that transcends ethnicity?

The idea that we should be “Malaysians first, Chinese/Indian/Malay second” may be symbolically empowering, but it sounds conceptually hollow. Even Opposition giant, Lim Kit Siang, appears to skirt the issue of what a Malaysian is in his interview with Nut Graph. This is his reply when asked what his Malaysian identity means to him:

“I’m a Malaysian, first and last. I’m proud to be a Chinese, and as I’ve said in Parliament, I’m proud to be a Chinese, but a Malaysian, first of all. Nobody is suggesting that anyone should give up their ethnic identities, but we should have this common bond where we agree that we are first of all, Malaysians. I will accept the definition of 1 Malaysia as being Malaysian first, then race, religion, or geographical origin second.”

This reminds me of a joke about a guy who visits a doctor for medical advice. The doctor examines him, thinks hard, then tells him, “You need medical advice!”

In short, Lim doesn’t have a definite answer. Then again, do we really need one?

The term ‘Malaysian’ could be what some wickedly smart (and a little crazy) Continental philosophers call an empty signifier, a pregnant negativity, a positive void i.e. it’s a term which names a space to be contested politically. Filling in the word ‘Malaysian’ with positive content thus becomes LESS IMPORTANT than the battle for the RIGHT to do the filling in.

When activists like Hannah Yeoh and her husband fight for the right to register their child as ‘Anak Malaysia’ instead of either Chinese or Indian, it’s the gesture itself that counts. Yeoh, Lim and others wish to carve out an empty space not because they value emptiness in itself but because in times of injustice, we need a “liberating/open negative” to challenge the “oppressive/closed positives”. We need to keep certain symbols — in this case, the word ‘Malaysian’ — ripe for redefinition, free from propaganda and dripping with enchanting possibilities.

Should we then accept that no definition is forthcoming and/or stick with defining ‘Malaysian’ by what it is not (or should not be)? Maybe not. The liberating vacuum that ‘Malaysian’ stands (in place) for should invite engagement even as it resists monopoly by any group. We must throw in our lot with hammering down a clear meaning of our Malaysian-ness whilst simultaneously recognising that for the good of the term itself, our nails will never be completely banged down.

So, here’s one take: We can see the word “Malaysian” as an emergent symbol which draws it integrity and meaning each time ethnic harmony and cultural cooperation happens. This is to say that my Malaysian identity is simply the name for the compassion and concern I have for people of other ethnicities, with whom I share this nation-state. Paradoxically, this means that I am a (Chinese) Malaysian to the extent that I let my neighbour grow and flourish in his Indian-ness or Malay-ness (or Nepalese-ness) and vice-versa.

If we take the above definition, then when leaders wave a keris to symboliSe the (possibly violent) supremacy of one ethnicity over others, that’s not being ‘Malaysian’. Likewise, if certain races are singled out for punishment in the form of reduce budget allocations because, presumably, they didn’t support the ruling regime, then this isn’t being ‘Malaysian’. Also, to the extent that the sacred books of other religions are treated with disrespect, to this same extent is the name of ‘Malaysian’ also defaced.

The term ‘Malaysian’ therefore is not so much propositional as it is performative — less of being than becoming. The Malaysian identity would therefore focus more on WHAT I DO rather than WHO I AM. It’s certainly ethnic in character but it’s not defined via antagonism but is instead grounded in constructive multi-ethnicity.

1 Malaysia, then, should be a principle that promotes the actionable truth that MY ETHNIC IDENTITY IS FULFILLED ONLY IN MY CARE AND SERVICE TO THOSE OF OTHER ETHNICITIES.

So perhaps our PM should have issue the following reply:

“Yes, I’m Malaysian first, then Malay. I know this isn’t what Muhyiddin said, but in the very SPIRIT of 1 Malaysia, let’s listen to each other, be clear about our differences, rejoice in our shared visions and goals, and work to build each other up. 1 Malaysia is bigger than our contradictions and antagonisms, greater than political statements and, for the sake of its true nature, should always be a work-in-progress. So I’m curious now: what are YOUR thoughts on 1 Malaysia and being Malaysian?”

* Alwyn Lau reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.