In Memoriam: Rustam Sani (1944-2008)

By Abdul Halim Ali

Rustam was such a prolific writer. His horizon was broad, especially on the socio-political landscape of Malaysia of his era. This included the development and crisis surrounding Malay language as language of science to enable it to be a vehicle of a new civilization. The cultural crisis that emerged in the effort to create a nation has been his constant topic. In the 1980s and 1990s Rustam posited a context, from which his conception of ‘New Malay” might emerge and who would then play his historical and sociological roles as ‘definers’, the term used being “pentafsir”. He was of course pointing to the centrifugal and centripetal forces over the contested notion: what is a nation; and what is Malaysian nation. Indeed, post-coloniality was one of the forces that he wanted to dismantle. One is therefore reminded of the thesis of J.S. Furnivall on the colonial plural societies of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Myanmar and its social ramifications even to this day to understand his concern.

Owing to the breadth of his writings, a few of which colours my own orientation on the notion of nation, I shall focus only two of his publications. Both which are directly related to each other. One was published in 1976 and the other 17 years later in 1993.

1. Melayu Raya as a Malay Nation-of-Intent” Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in      1976. The second edition in 1986.

2. Wawasan 2020 published in 1993 BY Utusan Publications.

The Nation-of-Intent

            Briefly Rustam discusses the concept of Melayu Raya and in so doing he  rejects the common argument, especially of foreign researchers that it is of Indonesian origin. Instead, he posits a point that Melayu Raya which he refers to as a Malay Notion-of-intent is rooted in the ideology of Kesatuan Melayu Muda(KMM), although not discounting the influence of the anti-colonial struggle against the Dutch in Indonesia. Both Indonesia and Malaysia had a common aspiration to oppose colonialism and subsequently to establish the independent nation states of Indonesia and Malaysia.

            J.S. Furnivall describes “plural society” as a rainbow of ethnicities (note: parallel rainbow lines do not meet) whose differences rather than commonness is predominant. Indeed, a grim reminder of one of the essential features of conservative multicultural ideology. When Malaysia, Indonesia and Myanmar were colonies, in the name of commerce and free trade, the countries’ wealth were produced with little or no social will. Though the natives and immigrants lived in one single country, they were merely allies who were without a common will. A general disorganization also characterized a plural society of the colonial type that we have had. The structure of demand in that society was not coordinated by a set of common cultural values. In but not of Rome.

            In the economic sphere, the emphasis was on production rather than the social. Such was the major features of Malaysian plural society according to Furnivall.

            What was happened since? Malaysia still mulls over the residual characteristics of its colonial past and hesitates on a radical restructure. Social engineering is a dreaded word after the attempt in 1971.

            Myanmar and Indonesia have dismantled the doctrine. However, Singapore accepted it but modified the colonial ‘plural society’ into a notion of “multi-racial society”. Multi-racialism has since been considered as part of its national ideology where races are neatly packaged into Chinese, Malays, Indians, and “Others” with all its social unease as several surveys have shown recently.

            Indeed, as Malcolm Caldwell pointed out the most influential text on the notion of a nation was an essay by Joseph Stalin in 1913 who listed a set of five criteria. Stalin’s notion of nation is reflected in the Indonesian Youth Pledge of 1928 – ‘One nation, one state, and one language’. Essential criteria of Stalin’s notion also appeared in our own People’s Constitution of 1945:

            1. A stable continuing community

            2. A common language

            3. A distinct territory

            4. Economic cohesion

            5. A collective character

            The general political mood of the anti-colonial period of history as shown by the ideas prevalent in the early twentieth century – its zeigeist – was gravitating towards the classical political texts of the time (Kitab Kuning Politik) by V.I. Lenin and J. Stalin. These texts were popular in Asia and Africa at the time of nation-building.

            The concept of Melayu Raya emerged also as a consequence of the particularity of Malaysian history whose demography was upset and even in an easy imbalance in early 20th century following the 1874 British plot. In fact, Rustam asserted that the notion of Indonesia Raya was developed after Melayu Raya. He was of course, referring to the political vision of Indonesian nationalist from Sumatera, Muhamad Yamin who coined the term.

            He regarded Melayu Raya as a nation-of-intent. Publications written by Abdul Hadi bin Hassan in 1928, Ibrahim bin Haji Yaakub (student of Abdul Hadi), Buyong bin Adil and also by Burhanuddin Helmi bin Mohd Nor expressed both political and cultural vision although initially it was a cultural concept. It was in the beginning, a manifestation of the concept of culture zone associated with the Annale School of France. Even with kulturkreiss concept.

            Rustam was dismissive of the proposition that the nation-of-intent of Melayu Raya has an Indonesian origin because Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) could not be equated with political organizations in Malaysia with strong affiliation with China and India. He described MCA and MIC as “outpost” parties, an allegorical allusion to a small military camp but away from the main army, used for watching an enemy’s movement. That was that.

            An interesting aspect of his argument on the nation-of-intent is the point of political inheritance. If inheritance is meant someone or some groups are affected by the ideas and activities of people before them, then he concluded that Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Muda, Putera, Parti Rakyat Malaya, Parti Islam Semalaya (PAS) are the inheritors, the beneficiaries of KMM – Kesatuan Melayu Muda.

            This point merits further research on how extensive the notion of the nation-of-intent is upon the unconsciousness of organised groups in Malaysia. For those historically conscious, how are they affected even if they are not totally aware of it – that is subliminally- through social, historical, and even collective memories? Needless to say, the notion of the nation-of-intent will be adapted to a new context of ASEAN region and to a novel zeitgeist.

            For example, by extension, should the younger generation of scholars examine if the Tenth Regiment of the Communist Party of Malaya is an inheritor of PKMM? By an added extension too, is it far-fetched to also examine if Parti Persaudaraan Islam (PAPERI) in Pattani an inheritor of PKMM? Then in March 1981, another Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Muda Resolutioner was formed in Pattani. Do they have a common political DNA?

            These are some areas for further research consequent upon the nation-of-intent posited by Rustam in 1976, – 45 years ago.

            The last expression of the notion of such nation-of-intent was delivered in 1964 when Burhanuddin Helmi proposed in parliament of the concept Melayu Raya. That Malaysia of 1963 was only a prelude towards Melayu Raya, according to Burhanuddin.

 “WAWASAN 2020”

            Seventeen years after his notion of nation-of-intent, Wawasan 2020 was proclaimed by Mahathir Mohammad to an audience of business people. It was nonetheless a historic document, although some considered it a development project. Rustam had a hand in one of the items of Wawasan 2020 on Bangsa Malaysia, while serving as fellow of Institute of Social and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

            Wawasan 2020 to him was a significant initiator in the establishment of Malaysian Nation. It was an example of the significance of a non-economic dimension in the much accustomed economistic plans of Malaysia.

            Wawasan 2020 is an initiator of the ideology of Malaysian Nationalism. That is to say a nationalism with a capacity to be elevated to a higher form of nationalism for Malaysia.

            Wawasan 2020, according to Rustam enabled Malays to play the role of a definer in the evolution to form a Malaysian Nation. In his estimation, Malays have not yet able to transform satisfactorily from Malay Nationalism to a higher expression of Malaysian Nationalism. At least for the moment.

            At this stage of social development, Malaysians are not able to eliminate the residual elements of the colonial “plural society” as hypothesised by J.S. Furnivall. Any attempt at a creative integration into a new personality is often regarded as cultural domination. This, according to Rustam was a manifestation of an entrapment in a cultural confusion and intellectual cul-de-sac – no way out.

            On “Malaysian Malaysia” – it is an expression of an unconscious ideology that is desirous of returning to the colonial plural society. Given the predisposition, perhaps young scholars should expand Rustam’s assertion.

            The empires of the British that give rise to plural societies have long gone. But the consequences of their creation remain. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar a few years ago, perhaps require us to revisit the Furnivall hypothesis. It may enable us to understand the social centrifugal force to fly away from the centre. The emphasis on production rather than social is a stumbling block- a residue from the colonial past. So too is the proximity between market and ethnicity.

            Rustam’s legacy on the nation-of-intent and the establishment of a modern Malaysian Nation is something worthy of selection by young scholars.

            On a personal note, Rustam whom I knew in Universiti Malaya in the 1960s, later became my departmental colleague in 1975. He laughed at himself often, but laughed at the world even more.

            He was a wordsmith. Because of his command of the vocabulary, he was a person who was skilful at using words; punning being his favourite.

            Rustam had a formidable father. But the son always rises and shines.