|
...Mohamed (1997b) reiterated imbuing Malaysians with sense of common and shared destiny via initiatives such as Vision 2020 promulgated in 1991, (1) was one of the nation's most critical objectives. Current Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has also noted the importance of enhancing national unity through analysing existing strategies and approaches (New Straits Times 4 October 2004).
Until the end of the 1980s, the thrust of Malaysian socio-cultural policies was assimilative in orientation. Over time, Malay identity had advanced as the prescribed centre for Malaysia's national identity, and indeed, the 1971 National Culture Policy was based on Malay culture and Islam. (2) However, Chinese resistance to the policy's assimilative character was strong, and a substantively national culture had not been formed. The government did expect strong non-Malay resistance, and while it continued to promote Malay-centrism, it nevertheless acknowledged to an extent the cultural autonomy of ethnic minorities. For example, not only Malay but also Chinese and Tamil are recognized as languages of instruction in primary education within the National Education System despite Section 20 of the Rahman Talib Report of 1960 that noted that "it is not possible, within the framework of a policy which is truly national, to satisfy completely all the individual demands of each cultural and language group in the country". Policies implemented before the end of the 1980s can therefore be placed somewhere between neutral and assimilationism on the given dimension (Figure 1). These may also be understood to seek assertive integration (using an assimilationism-type approach) in contradistinction to assimilation.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
In the beginning of the 1990s, the government expanded the level of cultural autonomy enjoyed by ethnic minorities on account of certain factors: the government's assertive integration policies came to a standstill; the human rights movement on the international stage was gaining in prominence; the loss in Chinese votes in the 1990 general election had to be recouped; and the growing significance of the economy in China had to be accommodated. In line with Vision 2020, which affirmed that "Malaysians of all colours and creeds are free to practise and profess their customs, cultures and religious beliefs and yet feeling that they belong to one nation" (Mahathir 1997a, p. 405), socio-cultural policies appeared to shift towards multiculturalism in orientation. Mahathir also mentioned the need for such a shift (Mahathir 1996, p. 31).
In practice, however, the governments has not managed to fully recognize the cultural autonomy of minorities and signs of policy movement towards multiculturalism have been few. The government's policies cannot therefore be described as multiculturalist, but are best placed between neutral and multiculturalism (Figure 1) and defined as being accommodative integration (using a multiculturalism-type approach) in contradistinction to multiculturalism.
When accommodative integration policies are compared to assertive integration ones, it is possible to observe a shift in the degree to which Malay-centrism or the cultural autonomy of minorities played a role in policymaking. In short, it can be argued that the government indicated incipient ideological shifts towards national integration in the early 1990s.
Some policies were apparently well received by the Chinese, as argued by Ong (2004, p. 192) who claimed that Vision 2020 provided non-Malays with hope that they would in time be treated as full citizens, and their cultural autonomy would be fully recognized. This shift has the potential of effectively reducing tensions between the government and non-Malays in particular the Chinese community and hence contributing to social stability. However, to what extent an ideology located on a multiculturalist scale (accommodative integration and multiculturalism) can influence national integration remains to be seen. On the one hand, there is a possibility that by expanding the cultural autonomy of minorities, ethnic polarization will widen and end in national disunity. On the other hand, it is argued that "unity in diversity" based on harmonious apartness is possible.
This paper examines the impact of the shift towards multiculturalism through the study of a specific legislation. The 1996 Education Act, which was an amendment of the 1961 Education Act (an assertive integration policy), softened government control over educational institutions using non-Malay as a medium of instruction, and can therefore be considered an accommodative integration policy. As language is one of the strongest elements of ethnic identity, educational institutions using Chinese as a medium of instruction are regarded as one of the bastions for the preservation of Chinese culture and identity, and therefore as a hindrance to national integration. Zamani (2002, p. 204) argues that separate Malay, Chinese, and Tamil primary schools have helped divide the country as a whole. Therefore, Chinese enrolments in national-type (4) Chinese primary schools (SRJK-C: Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan Chinese) and Independent Chinese Secondary Schools (ICSS) where Chinese is a medium of instruction function as a barometer of Chinese identity, of resistance to government's assimilative policies and consequently of ethnic polarization that leads to national disunity. Chan (2004) argues that ethnic polarization in primary and secondary education may perpetuate ethnic polarization. Thus the impact of the ideology shift will be examined through an analysis of ethnic polarization in primary and secondary education as revealed in Chinese enrolment trends since the implementation of the 1996 Education Act. It is hoped that the limitations of multiculturalist-oriented policies in facilitating national integration in Malaysia can be more clearly understood.
The Relationship between Multiculturalism and National Integration
Gellner (1983) claims that nations tend to emerge from homogeneous cultural units, while Smith (1986) asserts in similar fashion that national identity is strongly based on the dominant ethnic community. Both seem to downplay the possibility of accommodative integration policies and multiculturalism in fostering national identity and integration. Huntington (2004, p. xvi) states that the requirement for a common culture in the forging of national identity has been undermined by the doctrines of multiculturalism and cultural diversity. Additionally, Lasch (1995, pp. 17-18) believes that multiculturalism would lead to national collapse while Schlesinger (1993) warns that it could cause ethnic upsurge and result in national disunity. (5) What seems to be a common idea is that an ideology located on a multiculturalist scale is not conducive to national integration and may have a negative impact on national identity.
By contrast, advocates of multiculturalism see the concept of "unity in diversity" as an effective tool for national integration. Anderson (1983) purports that a nation is an imagined political community because members will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each of them lives the image of their communion. As such, even if the government recognizes the cultural autonomy of minorities, which may subsequently result in ethnic polarization in socio-cultural aspects, nationhood can still be imagined and national integration attained as long as there are shared values to bind the diverse population. Put simply, loyalty to the state and its governing principles can potentially serve as preconditions binding all ethnic communities together.
This perspective is supported by Brown (2000, p. 128) and Cobban (1945) who have purported that ethno-cultural diversity can be more effectively accommodated when individuals direct their loyalty to the state rather than to their ethno-cultural groups. As such, ethnic diversity and multiculturalism will not be problematic in fostering national identity as long as people are loyal to the state. In Malaysia, political loyalty to the state is recognized as an important factor in fostering "unity in diversity". For example, Vision 2020 suggested that united Malaysian nation...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia
Memory or nostalgia: the imagining of everyday Bangkok., April 01, 2007
Symbolic power in a technocratic regime: * the reign of B.J. Habibie i..., April 01, 2007
The inculturation of a transnational Islamic missionary movement: Tabl..., April 01, 2007
Rites of Belonging: Memory, Modernity, and Identity in a Malaysian Chi..., April 01, 2007
Transnational Migration and Work in Asia.(Book review), April 01, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
