Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Multi-Ethnic Malaysia

By Hock-Tong Cheu

Hock Tong Cheu received his Masters and Ph.D degrees from Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., and had lectured in Anthropology and Sociology in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia from 1976 till mid-1995. From mid-1995 till 2000, he taught in the Malay Studies Department and the Southeast Asian Studies Center, National University of Singapore. He was a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore in 1984 and a Fulbright Visiting Scholar-in-Residence at the Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, from August 1987 to October 1988. He has made several in-depth studies of the Nine Emperor Gods Spirit-Medium Cults as well as the Chinese Locality Saints, the Nadugong, and the Malay Keramat in Southeast Asia. Dr Cheu, who is effectively trilingual in English, Chinese and Malay, wrote prolifically, and had contributed numerous articles in all three languages to professional and academic journals, magazines and newspapers. He had also presented numerous academic papers for discussion in local and international conferences.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Partridge Publishing Singapore
• Release date: Dec 6, 2020
• ISBN: 9781543762129

Book preview

Copyright © 2020 by Hock-Tong Cheu.

ISBN:      Softcover      978-1-5437-6211-2

               eBook          978-1-5437-6212-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

www.partridgepublishing.com/singapore

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Preface

1    Assimilation Versus Pluralism: Towards A Theory of National Integration

2    Ethnicity Versus National Integration: A Conceptual Perspective

3    National Unity in Multi-Ethnic Malaysia

4    The Rationale of Unity in the Formation of a National Society

5    Problems Of National Unity: Obstacles And Solutions

6    Values and Ethnic Interaction in a Multi-Ethnic Society

7    The Role of Religious Values in Promoting National Integration

8    Revival Movement and Ethnic Integration in Sabah

9    Toward a Consensual Leadership in Multi-Ethnic Society

10    Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia: Some Out-Dated Stereotypes

11    Chinese Religious Elements in the Formation of ‘National Culture’

12    Chinese Community Disloyal To Malaysia: Is It True?

13    Polarization Of Traditional Malay Culture1

14    Chinese Attitudes towards Mixed Marriage

15    The Zheng Family: An Ethnic Case Study

List of Chinese Characters

Bibliography

Appendix I : Malaysian Flag

Appendix II :The National Anthem of Malaysia

Appendix III    RUKUN NEGARA

Appendix IV    National Monuments of Malaysia

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I hereby sincerely acknowledge my indebtedness to the following publishers for their copyright permission to reprint the following articles or papers in a single volume for the ease of reference of researchers. The papers which were originally written in Chinese and Malay had been translated into English for the purpose of this volume.

(1) Assimilation versus Pluralism: Towards a Theory of National Integration, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Asian Studies, Vol. III, Asian Research Service, Hong Kong, 1981, pp. 489-507.

(2) Ethnicity versus National Integration: Conceptual Perspectives, Jurnal Negara, Department of Na-tional Unity, Prime Minister’s Department, Vol. VI, No. 1, Kuala Lumpur, 1982, pp. 11-20.

(3) National Unity in Multi-Ethnic Malaysia Asian Profile, Vol. 23, No. 4, Asian Research Service, Hong Kong, 1995, pp 297-314.

(4) The Rationale of Unity in the Formation of a National Society [Rasional Perpaduan dalam Pembentukan Masyarakat Nasional], paper presen- ted at the 12th Annual Convention and Reunion of the Federation of Malaysian Student Associations of North America, State University of New York (SUNY), Binghamton, New York, 27-30 December 1980, pp. 8-27.

(5) Problems of National Unity: Obstacles and Solu- tions [Masalah Perpaduan Negara: Halangan dan Penyelesaian], Jurnal Negara, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1987.

(6) Cultural Values and Ethnic Integration in Multi- Ethnic Societies, Asian Profile, Vol. 20, No. 4, Hong Kong, 1993, pp. 309-316.

(7) The Role of Religious Values in National Integra- tion [Nilai-Nilai Agama dalam Integrasi Nasion- al], Jurnal Negara, Department of National Unity, Prime Minister’s Department, Vol. IX, No. 1, Feb- ruary 1985, pp. 1-9.

(8) Revival Movement and Ethnic Integration in Sabah, Proceedings of the Second International Sympo- sium on Asian Studies, Vol. 3, Asian Research Service, Hong Kong, 1980, pp. 427-445.

(9) Towards a Consensual Leadership in a Multi- Ethnic Society [Ke Arah Kepimpinan yang Ber- kesan dalam Masyarakat Majmuk], Ilmu Masya- rakat, Vol. 12, No. 11, 1987, pp. 6-16.

(10) Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia: Some Outdated Stereotypes [Komuniti Cina di Asia Tenggara: Beberapa Masalah Tafsiran], Widya, No. 68, April 1983, pp. 42-46.

(11) Chinese Religious Elements and National Culture, [华族宗教成分与国家文化的塑造], Equatorial Monthly, Issue No. 104, 1991, pp. 3-17.

(12) Chinese Community Not Loyal to Malaysia: Is It True? [Benarkah Komuniti Cina Tak Setia Pada Malaysia], Sarina, Issue 80, November 1982, pp. 64-73.

(13) Polarization of Traditional Malay Culture, Ilmu Masyarakat, Vol. 10, 1985, pp. 51-63.

(14) Chinese Attitudes towards Mixed Marriage [Sikap Orang Cina Terhadap Kahwin Campur], Mastika, November 1972, pp. 112-117.

(15) The Zheng Family: An Ethnic Case-Study, research conducted under the sponsorship of Toyota Found- ation, Tokyo, Japan, 1993-94.

PREFACE

This book contains some fifteen papers published in academic and semi-academic journals, magazines, and vernacular newspapers, from the nineteen seventies till the late nineties. Some of them were originally written in Chinese and Malay, and they had been translated to English for the purpose of this volume (for details, see Acknowledgments).

The book is roughly divided into three parts: (i) theoretical and conceptual discussions, (ii) Chinese ethnic community and its relationship with the Malay ethnic community, (iii) applied aspects of ethnic relations and case- study, which recapitulates the sociocultural development of the Chinese community from the time of early immigration till the present.

The first few chapters are theoretical discussions of concepts related to ethnicity, ethnic relations, problems of national unity, basis for the formation of national culture, socio-cultural values in the promotion of national integration, and consensual leadership in multi-ethnic society. They include: (i) Assimilation versus Pluralism: Towards a Theory of National Integration, (ii) Ethnicity versus National Integration: Conceptual Perspective, (iii) National Unity in Multi-Ethnic Malaysia, (iv) The Rationale of Unity in the Formation of a National Society, (v) Problems of National Unity: Obstacles and Solution, (vi) Cultural Values and Ethnic Integration Multi-Ethnic Communities, (vii) The Role of Religious Values in Promoting National Integration, (viii) Revival Movement and Ethnic Integration in Sabah, and (ix) Towards a Consensual Leadership in Multi-Ethnic Society.

The second part of the book places emphasis on the Chinese and their relations with the Malays in Malaysia, in particular, and the Chinese in other parts of Southeast Asia, in general. The topics are as follows: (i) Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia: Some Outdated Stereotypes, (ii) Chinese Religious Elements and National Culture, and (iii) Chinese Community Not Loyal to Malaysia: Is It True?

The last part of the book deals with some practical aspects of ethnicity and ethnic relations as captured in the following chapters: (i) Polarization of Traditional Malay Culture, (ii) Chinese Attitudes towards Mixed Marriage, and The Zheng Family: An Ethnic Case- Study.

In summary, I would like to highlight some perennial issues pertaining to the problems of the Chinese community and their relations with the State.

First Issue. To be frank, in ordinary day to day activity, Chinese are able to establish a very cordial relationship with the Malay folk either in the cities or villages. The so-called ethnic problems are, in most instances, political problems or problems concocted by racist and extremist politicians.

Racist politicians, for example, postulate that ethnic Chinese need to be fully assimilated, or Malayized, in order to achieve ethnic integration in Malaysia. This view is born out of pathetic ignorance about the true nature and function of assimilation. To begin with, Malays are in conflict with Malays as demonstrated by members of UMNO and PAS (Parti Islam Se Malaysia) even though they belong to the same ethnic community, embrace the same religion and practice the same culture. The Aborigines in Peninsular Malaysia and the tribal communities in Sabah and Sarawak are at odds with the so-called Malay bumiputeras as most of them are animists and quite a sizeable number of them are Christians.

Secondly, assimilation by coercive force is contrary to the democratic system of Malaysian government. Even though the Malays are a majority, and the Chinese is a minority, Chinese culture has a strong and dominant base in Malaysia and the surrounding countries of East Asia and Southeast Asia. Moreover, it has existed continuously for more than five thousand years.

Thirdly, assimilation can only take place if the culture of the dominant group is stronger than that of the subordinate group like the Blacks in the United States of America. The Manchus might be a dominant group, and in control of imperial China during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), but they were assimilated by the subordinate group because its horse-back culture was weak and scanty.

Lastly, assimilation may not work if both the dominant and subordinate groups have equally strong culture. Racist politicians should take the cue and stop making a mockery of themselves by trying to raise the issue of assimilation or Malayization of Chinese ethnic community. The findings of the research paper entitled Revival Movement and Ethnic Integration in Sabah (see Chapter 8) has amply proved the point.

Second Issue. Most of the problems of ethnic relations are due to the unilateral or supremacist approach, or bullying attitude, adopted by a few little ‘brown Napoleons’ in the formulation of national policies. For example, in the early seventies, a few culture brokers held a conference to formulate the policies for the building of a national culture. The conference cited three principles in the formulation of national culture: (i) Local Malay culture must form the nucleus of Malaysia’s ‘national culture’; (ii) Islam must be part of the ‘national culture’; and (iii) other cultural elements that are conducive and compatible to Islam and Malay culture may be incorporated as part of ‘national culture’.

If one looks at the three principles, it was obvious that non-Malay and non-Islamic communities, including the Orang Asli and the tribal communities in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak, have no say or share, whatsoever, in the formulation of national culture. What was worse, before the so-called national culture was debated in Parliament, it was already implemented through the press and mass media, the radios and Television. Fortunately, the voice of the culture brokers who introduced the national culture seems to have died out the moment their breaths expired.

Third Issue. Another problem of ethnicity and ethnic relations is, in part, due to misperceptions of the Chinese community, not only in Malaysia, in particular, but also in Southeast Asia, in general. For example, the Chinese in Malaysia are labeled as ‘overseas Chinese’, ‘orang pendatang’ (‘new comers’), ‘orang asing’ (aliens), ‘guests’, and so forth. No wonder extremist politicians were ever so ready to hurl such slogans as ‘balik Cina’ or ‘balik tongsan’ (go back to China!) at the Chinese community whenever there was a street demon- ration organized by the Malay extremists.

Such labels as ‘overseas Chinese’, ‘immigrants’, ‘new comers’, ‘aliens’, ‘guests’ might be relevant at the time when Chinese ancestors first migrated to Malaysia in the mid- sixteenth century and before the Chinese Revolution in 1911 and when the Chinese Communist Party took over China in 1949. However, after 1949, Chinese in the Mainland were no longer allowed entry to Southeast Asia and vice versa. After gaining independence from the British in 1957, Malaysian Chinese had become legitimate citizens of Malaysia. Chinese in other parts of Southeast Asian countries also followed suit. This issue is discussed in greater details in the chapter on Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia: Some Outdated Stereotypes (see Chapter 10).

Fourth Issue. Another problem of ethnicity and ethnic relations is the deliberate intention of racist political leaders to misrepresent the Chinese as ‘the richest lot’ in Malaysia when in actual fact they knew very well that a major portion of the wealth in Malaysia lies in the hands of a few Malay and Chinese tycoons, billionaire politicians, and entrepre- neurs. In fact, the latest statistics shows that one percent of Malaysians own fifty percent of the wealth in Malaysia.

Besides the eight rich Malays listed in the Forbes 2020, the local media also mentioned, in October 2020, that five richest men identified in Malaysia included three politicians in Peninsular Malaysia, one in Sabah and another in Sarawak. If the Chinese were ‘the richest lot’, all these richest men in Malaysia should have come from the Chinese community.

The irony is that the politicians who pointed fingers at the Chinese as being ‘the richest lot’ in Malaysia are the ones who had squandered billions and trillions from the Malaysian people’s hard-earned money through internal maneuvering and illicit official transactions. This is a public knowledge and it sounds like thieves who shouted thieves to hook-wink the rakyat and the outside world and make the Chinese community a scapegoat in the eyes of the Malay masses. It is an evil attempt to create disharmony and conflict among the ethnic communities, especially between the so-called bumi-puteras and non-bumiputeras.

I would say the Chinese are a pathetic lot whose ancestors came to this part of Southeast Asia empty-handed and had to start their life from scratch. They worked very hard ‘day and night’ to make ends meet and made a lot of sacrifices to build up the social, educational, and religious networks that we see in the Chinese community today.

Over the years, and generation after generation, by dint of hard work and thrift they had gradually upgraded their economic status. Some died without gravestones to identify them. My grandfather died of hard labor, burning forest to earn pennies, before I came to this world and his spouse and descendants do not know where his body was buried till this day. The Zheng Family: An Ethnic Case-Study gives a full account of how an early immigrant family who struggled so hard to get rid of its rags of poverty (see Chapter 15).

The Chinese community had come a long way and had paid a very heavy price to achieve its current economic status – which courts the envy of the Malay masses and becomes the target of hypocrite racist politicians. Perhaps, it’s based on this assumption that racist political leaders attempted to undermine the importance of Chinese community by alloca-ting 177 million, or 1.39 percent, out of a total of RM322.5 billion in Malaysia’s 2021 National Budget.

Fifith Issue. Lastly, but not least, after all the spoilt of unilateral national policies, the state tried to camouflage the disintegrating effects by setting up a National Unity Board or Department of National Unity under the aegis of the Prime Ministry’s Department. Numerous forums, conferences, seminars, and debates had been conducted to discuss the issues of promoting national unity. Of course, all these forums and conferences were just shadow plays; they do not hold any real substance and the outcome does not necessarily provide any solution to the problem. How could the paper presenters tackle the problem of national unity when the state itself is adopting the tactic of ‘divide and rule’, a policy which political elites had learned from the British colonialists.

In Malaysia, people and people, people and govern- ment, and people and nation have been systematically segregated under the doctrine of bumiputeraism. The doctrine divides the people into two strata based on two exclusive ideological poles: (a) jus soli, and (b) jus sanguineis. The bumiputeras are defined and identified on the basis of jus soli, while the non-bumiputeras are defined and identified on the basis of jus sanguineis. The first principle is based on ‘place of birth’ while the second principle is based on ‘bloodline’ or biology. That is why I used the analogy of ‘kuih kacau’ (‘messed up cake recipe’) to relate to the divide and rule policy. How could one possibly use a ‘messed up cake recipe’ to produce ‘kuih kapit’ (love letters)?

In Indonesia, President Joko Widodo had passed a new Nationality Law (1996) which barred the identification of Indonesians as bumiputeras and non-bumiputeras and removed many other discriminative measures passed down by the iron-rule of Suharto. It is hoped that the racist politicians in Malaysia would look at the larger picture in space and time, and be ‘smart’ enough to take the cue and cease (i) bom-barding the rakyat with racist slogans, (ii) making futile attempts to Malayize Chinese community, but treating them as lawful citizens of Malaysia, (iii) making unilateral policies (such as the 1971 national culture policy) without due consultation with non-Malay ethnic communities, (iii) removing the stereotypic misperception of Chinese as ‘immigrant’, ‘new-comer’, ‘alien’ and ‘guest’ community, (v) deliberately distorting Chinese as the ‘wealthiest lot’ in Malaysia, and so forth.

Finally, I intend to dedicate this book to my parents, children and grandchildren, as well as the Chinese and other ethnic communities, past and present. I salute to them for their untold sacrifice, great tolerance, and resilience in adapting to the thorny socio-cultural and political environment in the mid-sixteenth century till the present. May God bless them and their future generations!

Hock-Tong Cheu

1

ASSIMILATION VERSUS PLURALISM:

TOWARDS A THEORY OF

NATIONAL INTEGRATION

This chapter attempts to examine the theories of assimilation and pluralism and see how they relate to the problems of national integration in a multi-ethnic society like Malaysia. In our discus- sion, we shall relate these theoretical perspectives to the socio- cultural dimension of ethnic relations, touching in passing the effects of political processes on the social life of such a society.

In the social science literature, the assimilationist and pluralist perspectives are most commonly used in explaining the nature and character of ethnic groups, their formation and define- tion, conflicts, and their interrelationship with the problems of ethnicity and national integration.

Whether assimilationist or pluralist, however, each model forms its basis on the assumption that there is in existence a situation in which contact or acculturation can take place. In such a situation, even though contact may lead to acculturation, acculturation may not necessarily lead to assimilation. This represents by far the most pervasive result of social science find- ings (see Glazer & Moynihan 1975, 1963; Nagata 1975; Despres, 1967; Gordon 1964; Lenski 1963; Rubin 1960; and Rosenthal 1960).

In fact, in some instances, assimilation may be reversed through revitalization (cf. Troubleblood 1977; Clammer 1975; Wallace 1972); in other cases, both assimilation and revitalization may take place simultaneously within the same ethnic community (Troubleblood 1977; Glazer & Moynihan 19631; Wolfinger 1965), let alone the same multi-ethnic society.

In other words, contact may lead to acculturation, acculturation to assimilation, and assimilation may revert to where it begins, a position commonly characterized as ‘plural’. This should come as no surprise since human beings are highly adaptable to changes, in space and time, and culture which forms the basis of social life, functions as an interactive product of such an adapt- ation.

Assimilation

However, before we proceed, let us ponder for a while, what is basically the difference between acculturation and assimilation? We need to answer this question first before we turn to the question of ‘pluralism’. By acculturation, we refer to the voluntary process of culture borrowing through which cultural elements of an ethnic group are incorporated into one’s own culture and transmitted from one generation to another (Beals 1953; Herskovits 1936, 1938).

Assimilation, on the other hand, refers to the total identifi- cation of individuals, or an ethnic group, with another ethnic group through the process, or a combination of more than one process, of miscegenation, child adoption, conversion, or acculturation, although each of these processes may not necessarily lead to assimilation, unless coercion or other contingency factors are involved. Although both acculturation and assimilation involve theprocesses of socio-cultural change and adaptation, the major differences between them lie primarily in the degree and extent of change involved.

In acculturation, for instance, an in-group’s cultural elements may change through reinterpretation and reintegration, but it does not necessarily entail a change in identity, or depend on an out- group’s acceptance.¹ Assimilation, on the other hand, involves a change in identity and depends on an out-group’s acceptance. In popular usage, then, assimilation is often regarded as a one-way traffic, or a unitary form of culture change.

Some social scientists, for example, see assimilation as a mental or psychological process, as characterized by such pheno- mena as ‘consciousness of kind’, ‘like-mindedness’, ‘being of a uniform mind’ (Park & Burgess 1921; Simons 1901).² Some see it as a process of cultural adaptation, acculturation, or socialization, which reconditions or nurtures the development of a new person- ality (Park 1930).³ Fairchild, on the other hand, sees assimilation as the process by which different cultures, or individuals or groups representing different cultures, are merged into a homogeneous unit (n.d.1 276), By this he means one nationality pattern is substituted for another.

Based on these perspectives, we actually see three main patterns of change emerging: (i) one looks upon assimilation as a process of psychological adjustment, (ii) another looks upon assimilation as a process of cultural adaptation, and (iii) yet another looks upon assimilation as a process of socialization or social structural integration.⁴

Be that as it may, the assimilationist model as adopted by social scientists since the turn of the twentieth century until the early 1960s (Park & Burgess 1921; Simons 1901) seems to have emphasized the unilinear nature of assimilation (cf. Gordon 1974), The unilinear assimilationist model assumes that, in any given society, there is a process at work, whereby individuals of diverse ethnic groups interact with, and are eventually absorbed into, a ‘larger dominant community’ (Siddique 1979),

However, as far as we know, assimilation may not neces- sarily involve the absorption of a ‘minority group’⁵ by a ‘majority group’. By this we mean a majority, or a politically dominant but numerically subordinate group, can also be assimilated by a mino- rity group or politically subordinate but numerically dominant group, as the Mongolian case in Yuan China demonstrates.

The question then is whether there is such a 1arger ‘dominant community’: a community that is dominant not only in politics but also in population size, and whether such a politically and numerically dominant community also coincides with its dominance in economy, culture, or civilization. Even if we assume that there is such a community, can we be certain that assimilation, in the way conventional social scientists conceived it, will mate- rialize?⁶

For many decades, the unilinear model has dominated many a study on multi-ethnic societies, both in the occidental (Park & Burgess 19211, Gordon 19641, Bash 1979) as well as in the oriental countries (Kassim 1978; Banks 1976; Clammer 1975; Gosling 1964; Coughlin 1960). This ethnocentric bias on the part of social scientists has had far-reaching effects on the design and implementation of government policies which bear dire conse- quences on the conditions of human relations both within and across national boundaries.

To understand the basis of this argument, it may be necessary to trace the origin of its development and the basis upon which the assimilationist model has been built. The proto-theory of assimilation had its origin in America, where the ideas of the ‘Anglo-Conformity’ and ‘the Melting Pot’’⁷ were first proposed.

The ‘Anglo-Conformity’ theory, by and large, demanded a complete renunciation of the immigrant’s ancestral culture in favor of the Anglo-Saxon core-culture. The ‘Melting Pot’ idea, on the other hand, envisaged a biological merger of the Anglo-Saxon people with other immigrant groups and a blending of their respecttive cultures into a new American type (Gordon 1964). The caveat we need to be aware of has to do with the fact that both the Anglo-Conformity and the Melting Pot theories were formulated with the exclusion of the Black and Colored immigrant commu- nities.

Pluralism

The ‘Melting Pot’ theory underwent a significant change when Kennedy’s (1944, 1952) research⁸ showed that there was a strong tendency for Americans to intermarry across lines of nationality background but confine within one or another of the three major religious groups: Protestant, Catholic, and Jew. Thus, a‘Triple Melting Pot’ thesis was proposed in place of the ‘Single Melting Pot’ hypothesis. However, this was not the first break- through in the theoretical orientation from the melting pot or assimilationist model to the pluralist model.

The first breakthrough, I would argue, lies not in Kennedy’s ‘Triple Melting Pot’ thesis but in Horace M. Kallen’s theory of ‘cultural pluralism’, a term which he used for the first time in his Culture and Democracy in the United States in 1924. He formulated this idea as early as 1915 when he published his article Democracy versus the Melting Pot in The Nation. Thus, contrary to what most social scientists have claimed,⁹ it was not J.S. Furnivall who first introduced the concept or theory of ‘pluralism’.

This is obvious since Furnivall (1939) first applied the idea of ‘plural economy’ or ‘economic dualism’ some twenty years after Kallen’s theory of ‘cultural pluralism’ was proposed. The point we try to raise here is that there has been a significant departure in the perspective adopted by Furnivall as opposed to that by Kallen.

When social scientists adopt Furnivall’s perspective and choose to ignore that of Kallen’s, it is inevitable that confusion arises. This confusion becomes almost ‘irremediable’, especially when we take cognizance of the fact that Furnivall’s idea of ‘pluralism’ has commanded the attention of practically all of the social scientists engaged in the study of plural societies for nearly half a century. Consequently, Kallen’s original theory of pluralism’ has been ignored, if not totally bypassed or submerged--much to the disenchantment of our contribution to the development of social science.

To begin with, Furnivall applied the plural theory in colonies where ‘divide and rule’ policy often constituted part and parcel of the administrative mechanism for fear that the subject people might unite to oppose or overthrow their colonial masters. Kallen, on the other hand, generated his theory out of the social system of a self- governing America, where he saw a discriminative and autocratic mode of assimilation at work.

The rationale behind his ‘cultural pluralism’ theory had been to advocate a more democratic and tolerant form of assimilation or acculturation. His take-off point was based on the idea of ‘cultural democracy’ rather than on the idea of ‘social autocracy’. He would not have minded, for instance, if the strategy of social structural integration had formed part of the raison d’etre behind the acculturative processes. This was exactly what he meant by ‘cultural pluralism’, since, obviously, cultural pluralism or, for that matter, the ‘melting pot’ theory, cannot exist without the inclusion of social structural integration.

Furnivall’s theory, in most parts, tends to be descriptive and subjective although implicitly his goal heavily leans toward an autocratic mode of assimilation as a means of putting a ‘plural society’ under control. This can be gleaned from some of the points he posited in his works (1939, 1942, 1948).

To begin with, he regards a plural society as one that comprises two or more social orders which live side by side, yet without mingling, in one political unit (1939: 446). In such a society, each upholds its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and way of life. As individuals they meet, but only in the market place, in buying and selling,,, (1948: 304). Such a society comes into existence by the ordinary working of the economic process of the natural selection of the cheapest (1942: 199).

According to him, the result of this process has been a division of labor along racial lines (1948: 304). He claims that, in such a society, the component sections of the population do not have a common ‘social will’ or commonly agreed set of values for checking and guiding social action. He sees "in the presence of large numbers of unassimilated traders…who were potent forces in the economies, the elements of a return to the dreaded Hobbesian state of nature (1948: 304).

To him, nationalism is itself a disruptive force, tending to shatter and not to consolidate its social order (1939: 18). For this reason, he argues, a plural society has to be held together only by external coercive power (1939: 468). He admits that unity itself may not necessarily be imposed by a foreign government - hinting perhaps to the possibility of a future neo-colonial state - but by the political force of national institutions (1939: 200).

Plural Theory: Its Application in Malaysia

In Malaysia’s case, Furnivall’s theory faces the problem of over-simplification. He tries to identify the social order in relation to race. This appears to be the way in which some Malaysian power elites try to solve her ‘plural’ problems along racial lines - supposedly to correct the past imbalances carried forward through the colonial era. The use of the criterion of race inevitably confuses the problem of national integration with ethnic and cultural diver- sity.

It over-emphasizes racial criterion as being the causal factor of economic imbalances, The emphasis on ethnic and cultural diversity, rather than on structural unity, also obscures the fact that, in the midst of diversity, there has always been unity in the integration of common social, economic, and political values within the overall social system.

In today’s Malaysia, for example, the diverse ethnic com- munities are held together under a system of federal government, based on parliamentary elections, although some of the basic principles of democracy characterizing a government of the people, by the people, for the people have been subject to a certain measure of erosion in recent years, This pattern of federal relationship and level of social integration does not represent anything unusual as compared to other homogeneous societies, whether in relation to ethnicity, language, religion or other socio- cultural phenomena (see Cheu 1981).

The only plausible explanation for ethnic conflict in Malay- sia is, in fact, the increasing convergence in common social, economic and political values which different groups strive to attain. It is, therefore, illogical for the Furnivallian theory to posit the idea that, in a plural society, the component sections of the population do not have a common ‘social will’ or commonly agreed set of values for checking and guiding social action, as if this is something peculiar only to plural or ethnically composite societies.

The use of the adjective ‘plural’, and its theoretical impli- cations thereof, seems to have placed an overwhelming emphasis on the diversities apparent in ethnically and culturally composite societies and diverts our attention from the wide measure of agreement and consensus in many spheres of social action evident in all sections of the population - a measure of agreement that may well be no less than that to be found in societies more ethnically homogeneous (Morris 1957: 125),

The validity of Furnivall’s theory, in so far as Malaysia is concerned, becomes more tenuous and questionable when one compares its application to an ongoing colonial society with that of an independent, neo-colonial state like Malaysia. Here, great strides have already been made towards integrating her people within a common social, economic, and political system through the implementation of national development plans, the adoption of New Economic Policy, the enforcement of a national education policy, the promulgation of the National Language Act (1967), the legislation of the Malaysian Constitution, the practice of the five state principles, Rukun Negara (National Ideology),¹⁰ the regulation of Rukun Tetangga (Principle of Neighborhood),¹¹ and, above all, the formation of the coalition government under the National Front (Barisan Nasional). As Morris has pointed out:

… problems of racial and cultural diversity are of secondary importance, even if race and culture form some of the values about which the ‘bargains’ in the relationships are struck. The ordering of relationships, and not cultural differences, are the most significant facts to consider in the analysis of a social structure. An adequate theory of groups for the study of social structure is a prerequisite, whether the societies are plural or not (1967: 170).

In my earlier work (1980), I had already pointed out the various aspects of ethnic groups, their definitions, how