Top L to R: Raja Permaisuri Agong Tuanku Nur Zahirah, Datuk Siti Nurhaliza, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Nurul Izzah.

Bottom L to R:  Rosmah Mansor,  Dr Siti Hasmah,  Rafidah Aziz,  Zeti Akhtar Aziz

 

Whether Malaysia’s sweetheart Siti Nurhaliza wears tudung is a matter of public interest and topic that makes the news.

While no one has done a head count, it appears that a greater majority of Malay or Muslim women in the country wear tudung.

For a slice of life, look at the official photos of the 34 Wanita Umno exco members. Every single one of them wears full tudung, with the exception of a small handful who opted for selendang.

Our Raja Permaisuri Agong wears tudung. As does PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, her daughter Nurul Izzah, Wanita PKR chief Zuraida Kamaruddin and head of Dewan Muslimat PAS Nuridah Mohd Salleh. Even Selangor exco Elizabeth Wong wore selendang to a PAS function.

Interestingly, the wives of Prime Ministers past and present – Siti Hasmah, the late Endon Mahmood, Jeanne Abdullah and Rosmah Mansor – do not wear tudung. Other notables who leave their head uncovered are the redoubtable Rafidah Aziz, Bank Negara governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Securities Commission chairman Zarinah Anwar and Dr Mazlan Othman, to name a few.

We have highly accomplished women on either side of the ‘tutup aurat’ divide that are role models, yet the trend among ordinary Malaysians tilts to tudung both in rural areas as well as urban.

Wearing religion on the sleeve

The baju kurung is not quite in the same category as the headscarf tutup aurat requirement. But this attire serves the same purpose of preserving a woman’s modesty.

We have the likes of Rafidah, Zeti and Zarinah to thank for taking baju kurung to the mainstream of professional dressing today. Unlike Malay men who are still largely Western-suited (eschewing Baju Melayu) in the corporate boardrooms, it is not de rigueur for Malay or Muslim ladies of similar standing to don power suits. The baju kurung is appropriate enough to meet dress protocol.

In Malaysia, if one wears a tudung, the natural assumption is that the wearer is a Muslim.

The baju kurung is not an equivalent to tudung as a discernible badge of the faith. But although not denoting Muslim, baju kurung does however connote the dominance of Malay norms. If Chinese and Indian norms were dominant, then it would be the other races regularly adopting cheongsam or sari.

Now let’s just have a quick glance at Article 160 of the Federal Constitution which defines Malay as a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.

There is a ‘Dunia Melayu Dunia Islam’ international convention which has been held in Malacca for nine years running, and 2009 should mark its10th anniversary.

A senior lecturer in Indonesian Studies at the University of New South Wales, Dr Minako Sakai once wrote that the convention organizers use an inclusive and broad definition of ‘Malay’. She observed, “As long as people speak the Malay language and adhere to Islam as their religion, they are regarded as Malay???.

In Malaysia, Islam and Malay have been legally conflated. Can you imagine such a law in, say, Ireland that makes a person whose native tongue is Irish compulsorily a Roman Catholic, or a law in India that makes a person who speaks Hindi necessarily a Hindu?

Minorities melted in pot

The ‘melting pot’ sociological model describes the process of assimilation.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, in his speech at the Unesco general conference two days ago, characterized the 1Malaysia “national philosophy??? he introduced when he assumed office as a “clarion call??? for “1dream, 1people and 1nation???.

In the half year since his slogan hit billboards in April, Malaysians are not really any less muddled on what the onederful oneness is all about.

Let’s also employ the same Article 160 framework defining Malay to instead hypothetically define a Chinese. He or she is a person who professes the ‘religion’ of his/her forefathers (Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism or a mix of them), habitually speaks the Chinese language and conforms to Chinese custom.

Going by the above guidelines, an individual such as the academic-cum-televangelist convert, Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah would not be considered Chinese.

As Dr Minako had noted, “… conflicting perceptions of who is Malay and what it means to be Malay, clearly demonstrates that ethnicity is not fixed. ‘Malayness’ is, for many, also a political and economic choice.???

Absorbed into the dominant polity

The late Siput Sarawak

A variant of the ‘melting pot’ is the ‘salad bowl’ model where its ingredients, like salad, are tossed together but do not merge into a single homogeneity.

The thrust of the ‘oneness’ structure espoused by Najib would, pragmatically, realise the predominance of the Malay-Muslim hegemony, which has become increasingly homogenous, compared to pre-1969. This development is largely due to the didactic role of the state in shaping ‘Malayness’.

What has been dubbed the ‘tudung index’ is one of the most visible indicators on the extent of the spread and reach of Islamist mores – at least in form if not in substance.

Our social scenario has become increasingly Malay, as evidenced in the widespread acceptance of baju kurung, and other habits like pointing with one's thumb. If baju kurung reflects Malay coating of the social landscape, then Putrajaya is testament to a landscape physically conforming to its master architect’s idea of Islamic state. It is a city he built from the ground for his Melayu Baru superclass.

It’s worthwhile to recall a Merdeka Centre survey a few years back which famously found that Malays saw their religion as their first and foremost identity marker. For Indians, their nationality was of the utmost relevance whereas Chinese saw their ethnicity as the most important marker of identity.

Thus it’s hardly surprising that Chinese will fight tooth and nail to retain the institution of the vernacular school, a fact which suggests the high premium they place on their original linguistic and cultural heritage, if not also the economic value of Mandarin given their exclusion from state-generated business.

Equal citizenship preferred to oneness

It is difficult to see how the Alice Onederland that is Najib’s public relations exercise can figure in realpolitik and reality. As long as Article 153 on Malay quota remains, then it will continually be the mechanism enabling a guise of ‘special rights’.

If there are ‘special people’ and non-special people, then obviously there cannot co-exist that feel-good advertising tagline ‘1people’ which precludes any distinction being made on Malaysian citizens.

Is the Prime Minister willing to get down to the nuts and bolts of his Bangsa Malaysia? What is its defining characteristic? Please, just list one.

Indonesia tried something like it. From the late 1960s onwards, her Chinese were forced to give up their birth names and adopt Indonesian names.

Chinese-language newspapers were closed, Chinese schools phased out, Chinese script in public places not permitted, and building and repairing of Chinese temples severely restricted.

These measures of forced assimilation reoriented the Chinese to speaking Bahasa Indonesia, to keeping celebration of Chinese festivals confined to the home, to suppressing their cultural expressions, such as the lion dance which was banned.

However, the Jakarta race riots in May 1998 showed the Indonesian Chinese community was still targeted in the looting, arson, rape and killings that occurred.

A greater acculturation of Malaysia’s minorities should indeed be negotiated but there is not enough goodwill and trust for us to go down the Indonesian 1people path of the 70s to 90s decades. In our globalised world of the 21st century where multiculturalism is finding favour, there is no need either.

Just give us 1citizenship.