Jim Baker, a modern writer on the history of Malaysia and Singapore, categorically states in his A Popular History of Malaysia and Singapore: Crossroads (2008) that the most distinctive features of the two countries are their multiracial populations.
He describes that the majority of the population, i.e. the Malays, have inhabited the land for almost 2500 years. The other two main ethnic groups, the Chinese and Indians, were communities who were mostly brought to the region in the 19th and 20th centuries. He continues that “It is the Malays who inhabited the area when modern written history began…”
The native sons of the soil therefore were apparently the Malays. Established records indicate that they were already Muslims during the 13th century. From the day they embraced Islam, the Malays were governed according to Islamic Laws for centuries, as again indicated by various classical legal artifacts and documents found in Terengganu and Malacca for example.
When the British colonized the region, they acknowledged the status quo by recognizing the Islamic Court, i.e. the Kathis Court, or the Office of Qadis, which was placed at the lowest tier of the civil system which they introduced and imposed.
This recognition was reinforced when two British judges, in the landmark case of Ramah v. Laton (1927), meted out their judgment affirming that Islamic law was the law of the land.
R.J. Wilkinson (d. 1941), an English historian of the Malay world underlines the important status and role of Islamic Law, affirming: “There can be no doubt that Moslem Law would have ended by becoming the law of Malaya had not British Law stepped in to check it”.
All the above indicate the role of Islamic Law here and reflect the fact that it was deeply rooted in the life of the Malays. Indeed, it is the religion of Islam that gives the Malays their identity.
Therefore, when the Federal Constitution (FC) 1957 proclaims Islam as the religion of the Federation and one of the defining characteristics of the Malays, it was done deliberately. It is an unequivocal recognition of the long history of the country, effectively putting the last nail to the historical reality pertaining to the symbiotic relation between the Malays and Islam.
One must also understand that when the FC was drafted and consequently approved, it aims at protecting and enhancing the interests of the original sons of the land as well as indiscriminately safeguarding the interests and fair share of other communities. It tremendously shapes the legal set up of the country and the relationship of its pluralistic society.
The final form of FC as it is today actually represents the agreement achieved by all our earlier leaders of the three main ethnic groups fighting for independence and the formation of a harmonious nation.
Reflect upon the words of Iqbal (d. 1935), a great poet-thinker of the Indian subcontinent: “No people can afford to reject their past entirely, for it is their past that has made their personal identity” (Reconstruction, 1986).
Unfortunately, the racial tension in our civil society resurfaces time and again, triggered by a number of political events. To make it worse, these events generally advocated by certain groups of professionals and the so-called educated, mainly those who read law.
They appear to simply ignore the history of our country and consider irrelevant some related historical truths and sensitivities. Hiding behind the cloak of apparent professionalism and intelligence, giving the impression of championing human rights, they spearhead a movement to mislead and confuse the public, inflaming racial and social anarchy, putting peace and national unity at risk.
Perhaps there might be some truth in the words of Edmund Burke, an 18th century British political theorist and philosopher, that lawyers are bad historians.
With the support of these legal personalities, certain groups are made to believe that they are not well treated, and are victims of human rights abuses. Those who fight against such alleged infringements are hailed as human rights vanguards, backed by ‘professional pleaders in a court of justice’.
Among the primary reasons for creating all these suspicions and misunderstandings in our multi-ethnic community result from an ignorance of history, or what may be referred to as ‘historical blindness’. Sadly, our educational system for quite some time has been distancing many from our own history.
Not knowing our own history, many Malaysians fail to appreciate the correct interpretations of events and the painful sacrifices experienced by our forefathers in nurturing unity and stabilizing the country.
However, the situation is not beyond repair. We must not perceive it as being chronic. The situation is more like someone suffering from bad dandruff. The solution is not to sever the head, but rather to apply proper medication until the condition is remedied.
Dissatisfaction and grievances concerning certain provisions in our FC, Acts of Parliament or states enactments, must not be resolved by repealing those statutory provisions/documents altogether, or by destroying institutions associated with them.
If there are shortcomings, say, in the administration of the Syariah Court, the right approach is not to abandon the entire Islamic legal and judicial system.
Indeed Islamic law is essentially derived from a revealed source but its implementation involves human reasoning. And human reasoning is subject to error.
Misinterpretations and extremism from certain Muslim office bearers should not be regarded as necessarily the fault of Islam, neither an outright injustice to the parties concerned, Muslim or otherwise.
There are certainly shortcomings in the civil system as well. For example, section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 does not provide for the party converting to Islam to apply for his/her dissolution of marriage.
By virtue of this omission, should one get rid of this Act altogether? Or should we dissolve the entire civil system for the resulting injustices?
What all of us should do is to wisely put forth suggestions to refine or amend the existing relevant problematic provisions, enactments or Acts until all disputing parties get the justice they deserved. If it is necessary to enact new laws, then by all means do so, irrespective of race or religion.
One of the ways to overcome historical blindness is to seriously encourage a proper learning and understanding of history. Its approach and methodology must be correct. A stronger political will is the primary prerequisite.
Many perceive history as unimportant and dull, only concerned with dates. In truth, history travels beyond just dates and events. More significantly, it is rather lessons that one may derive from the past that matters. We are supposed to learn from our ancestors, to emulate their achievements, and not to repeat their errors.
In the Islamic intellectual tradition, the biography and life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is referred to as ‘sirah‘, and not ‘tarikh‘ (history) because it contains abundant admonitions and guidance.
It is now high time to make history compulsory for all Malaysians at every level of education. I cannot but agree with Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, that for the Muslims, history now becomes an obligation, a fardh ayn. Not only the history of Islam, in relation to this country in particular, but the history of Islam in relation to the world in general.
I urge all Malaysians to accept and appreciate our respective historical experiences and realities. Do not subscribe to the dichotomy of first class and second class citizenship, if any, as it is absolutely irrelevant, if we understand history correctly.