IT is interesting to note that the chairman of the Special Select Committee on Inter-State and Federal Relations, Hassan Karim, said earlier this week that we should stop using such terms as “Bangsa Johor”.
There is no Johorean that would deny being a part of “Bangsa Malaysia” but does that mean there should be no “Bangsa Johor”?
The 10 states that comprised the Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States were independent in name only and were subject to the rule of British residents.
The Johor sultanate, however, often saw itself as a distinct political entity with relative autonomy in certain matters of administration and economic development alongside its privilege of having a written constitution.
The “Bangsa Johor” concept, first introduced in the 1920s by Sultan Abu Bakar, saw a resurgence in the national conversation by Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim in 2015 as part of his proposed direction for Johor.
Groups that share a distinctive background often have a common history that unites and defines them as a people. Similarly, individuals would identify more with smaller local groups. So it is perfectly natural for people to have pride in a local identity such as “Bangsa Johor”.
Hassan’s concerns over a state identity overriding national unity seem overblown. Any sense of shared history in Malaysia is national, not state.
The efforts of Johor to foster a complementary political identity by reviving “Bangsa Johor” should be applauded. The state should be able to celebrate its rich history, after all it was the birthplace of Umno.
Our struggle for independence from the British brought with us the idea of Malaysia as a nation.
By the time Malaysia was formed in 1963, the new country had Malays, Chinese, Indians, Peranakan, Kadazan, Dayak, Bidayuh, ethnic Thais and others who blended into existing cultures and developed their own language and identity. To call them Malaysians would be diluting the diversity.
Every state has its unique history and culture. This is good for many reasons.
Exposure to different ways of thinking can stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship.
But most importantly, diversity builds resilience. Take a look at nature, where biologists have found that artificial crops are more vulnerable to diseases because they lack genetic diversity.
This is not to say that we should deprioritise the creation of a stronger national identity. In fact, diverse state identities such as Bangsa Johor or Bangsa Kedah would strengthen our national identity. It promotes a sense of competition and pride between the states, which contribute to the larger entity that is Malaysia.
The political identity of Malaysians has changed — we see the federation as more centralised. But this means that we should continue to keep our local cultures and identities alive instead of trying to reduce them to a single identity.
The Select Committee should look at ways to improve relations and foster a diverse national identity between the states and the federal government.
The states should have a say in how federal policies affect them. Having a stronger state identity can boost federal initiatives so that the states can be better managed.
LUTFI SHAARI
Kuala Lumpur